[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: --- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > Simon Cozens writes:
: > : Larry Wall:
: > : > Not the same concept exactly. I think a C<break> within a C<for>
: > loop
: > : > would be the same as a C<next>, not a C<last>.
: > :
: > : Doesn't this break C and Shell resonance?
: >
: > We've done that before. :-)
:
: Umm, doesn't break translate basically as "leave, now" rather than as
: "hop to the loop nexus and consider leaving"?
Sure, but it means "leave the switch now", not "leave the loop now".
: What's your thinking in equating break w/ next?
Only that
for @foo {
...
}
can be thought of as shorthand for
for @foo -> $temp {
given $temp {
...
}
}
I am also assuming that the break is only meaningful as a switch control,
not a loop control. But I can see where it would be confusing. Perhaps
C<break> should be illegal inside a C<for>, and the user forced to choose
between C<next> and C<last>.
Larry
